Isaiah
Moore seeks judicial review of a final decision denying his
application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 and 1383
et seq. The court has jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For the following
reasons, the court vacates the Commissioner's decision
and remands this case for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.

I.
Background

Mr.
Moore's application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income was denied initially, on
reconsideration, and after an administrative hearing at which
he, Bernard Stevens, M.D., and a vocational expert testified.
Based on the record before him, the ALJ found that Mr. Moore
had severe impairments-morbid obesity, gout, and low back
pain with radiculopathy-but concluded that none of his
impairments met or medically equaled any of the impairments
listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1.

The ALJ
decided that Mr. Moore had the residual functional capacity
to perform sedentary work, as defined in 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1567(a), 416.967(a), with limitations,
[1]
including his past relevant work as a telephone solicitor,
and other work that existed in significant numbers in the
national economy, such as document preparer, order clerk, and
charge account clerk. The ALJ concluded that he wasn't
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and
wasn't entitled to benefits.

Mr.
Moore presents four issues for review: (1) whether
substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination
that he didn't have a medically determinable mental
impairment; (2) whether the ALJ's credibility
determination complied with relevant legal standards; (3)
whether the ALJ properly weighed the opinion evidence; and
(4) whether the ALJ's residual functional capacity
finding accounted for all of Mr. Moore's impairments. Mr.
Moore asks the court to either reverse the Commissioner's
decision and award benefits or remand the case for further
proceedings.

Mr.
Moore first argues that the ALJ erred at step two of the
sequential evaluation of disability when he determined that
Mr. Moore didn't have a medically determinable mental
impairment even though the mental health specialists that
either examined Mr. Moore or reviewed his records found
mental impairments. At step two, Mr. Moore had to show that
he had “a medically determinable physical or mental
impairment.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1521, 416.921.
The threshold showing of a severe or non-severe impairment
can't be established only by a claimant's
“statement of symptoms, a diagnosis, or a medical
opinion to establish the existence of an impairment, ”
but must be shown “by medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id.

Dr.
Parks's report supports a finding of a mental impairment;
he is a specialist, diagnosed Mr. Moore with major depressive
disorder based on a mental status examination, and the ALJ
didn't find that Dr. Parks's mental status
examination lacked medically acceptable clinical and
laboratory diagnostic techniques. Nonetheless, the ALJ found
that “the records don't support a finding of a
mental impairment.” [Doc. No. 15-2 at 24]. This
conclusory finding doesn't provide this court with a
logical bridge between his conclusion and the evidence in the
record that would allow the court to properly review his
finding. See Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1160
(7th Cir. 2010).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The ALJ
also pointed to brief mental health assessments made by
physicians during treatment appointments, for example, a
remark that Mr. Moore had appropriate mood and affect and was
cooperative during a follow-up appointment for gout treatment
to support his finding of no mental impairment.[3]But if the ALJ
sought to weigh these physicians&#39; opinions over those of
Dr. Parks, he could only do so after properly weighing Dr.
Parks&#39;s opinion by considering the required regulatory
factors. Se ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.